Background. Improper use, storage, and disposal of prescribed opioids can lead to diversion or accidental poisoning. Our previous study showed a large proportion of cancer patients have unsafe opioid practices. Our objective was to determine whether an improvement occurred in the patterns of use, storage, and disposal of opioids among cancer outpatients after the implementation of a patient educational program. Patients and Methods. Our palliative care (PC) clinic provides every patient with educational material (EM) on safe opioid use, storage, and disposal every time they receive an opioid prescription. We prospectively assessed 300 adult cancer outpatients receiving opioids in our PC clinic, who had received the EM, and compared them with 300 patients who had not received the EM. The previously used surveys pertaining to opioid use, storage, and disposal were administered, and

Dr Haider had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Background There is limited evidence about the response of breakthrough pain (BTP) to the most commonly used oral immediate‐release (IR) opioids. Our aim was to determine response rate to oral IR opioids for BTP control in patients with advanced cancer. Materials and Methods In this prospective study, palliative care outpatients, with advanced cancer and adequately managed background pain, were asked to complete a self‐administered survey. We assessed patients’ baseline demographics, pain characteristics, alcoholism (CAGE questionnaire), tobacco and substance abuse, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scores (ESAS). We determined the effectiveness of oral IR BTP opioids by using a 7‐point Likert scale ranging from “very ineffective” to “very effective.” “Effective” and “very effective” were defined a priori as a good response to IR opioids for BTP. Results Of 592 evaluable patients, 192 (32%) had background pain of ≤3 (ESAS pain scale 0–10). Among these 192 patients, 152 (79%) reported BTP, 143/152 (94%) took oral IR opioids for BTP, and 127/143 (89%) responded to a median dose of 10% of the total morphine equivalent daily dose. In univariate logistic regression analysis, younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 per year; p = .008), higher ESAS scores for pain (OR, 1.32; p = .012), anxiety (OR, 1.24; p = .017), and dyspnea (OR, 1.31; p = .007) had statistically significant association with poor response to IR opioids for BTP. In multicovariate logistic regression, adjusted for age, a higher ESAS dyspnea score was significantly associated with poor response to oral IR opioids (OR, 1.44; p = .002). Conclusion The vast majority of patients with advanced cancer with adequately controlled background pain reported a good response to oral IR opioids for BTP, supporting their use in clinical practice. Implications for Practice Oral immediate‐release opioids are standard treatment for cancer breakthrough pain. However, information regarding treatment response to these commonly used opioids is limited. This study provides information that the vast majority of patients with advanced cancer, with adequately controlled background pain, reported good response to oral immediate release opioids for managing their breakthrough pain episodes. Results of this study support the use of conventional oral immediate release opioids that are relatively inexpensive and readily available for management of breakthrough pain in patients with advanced cancer.

Context. Current guidelines recommend early referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer; however, no studies have examined the optimal timing of referral from the patients' perspective.Objectives. To examine patients' perceptions of timeliness of referral and its association with survival among patients with advanced cancer referred to an outpatient supportive care (SC) clinic.Methods. This cross-sectional prospective study in an SC clinic at a comprehensive cancer center included patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic cancer. Patients were asked to complete an anonymous survey regarding the timeliness and perceived usefulness of SC referral within four weeks of their first SC consultation.Results. Of 253 eligible patients, 209 (83%) enrolled in the study and 200 completed the survey. Median survival was 10.3 months. Most patients (72%) perceived that referral occurred ''just in time,'' whereas 21% felt it was ''late,'' and 7% felt ''early.'' A majority (83%) found the referral useful, and 88% would recommend it to other patients with cancer. The perception of being referred early was associated with lower reported levels of pain (P ¼ 0.043), fatigue (P ¼ 0.004), drowsiness (P ¼ 0.005), appetite loss (P ¼ 0.041), poor well-being (P ¼ 0.041), and lower physical (P ¼ 0.001) and overall symptom distress (P ¼ 0.001). No other associations were found between perceived timeliness and usefulness and patients' baseline characteristics.Conclusion. Most patients with a median survival of 10 months perceived that SC referral was timely and useful. Patient care needs rather than the timing of advanced cancer diagnosis drove this perception of referral timing. Lower symptom burden was associated with the perception of being referred to early.

10121 Background: Palliative Care referral is often thought to be delayed as judged by health professionals and caregivers. However, no studies have ever examined patients’ perception of timeliness of referral. The primary objective of this study was to determine patients’ perception of the timeliness of their own referral to an outpatient palliative care clinic. We also examined the association between perceived timeliness and actual timing of referral. Methods: In this prospective survey, patients with advanced cancer were asked to rate their perceived timeliness of referral using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from much too early to much too late within 7-35 days after their first consultation visit at Supportive Care Center. They were also asked when they felt referral to Supportive Care should occur along 4 points in their disease trajectory. Actual timing of referral was assessed based on survival from the timing of completion of the survey. Results: 200 advanced cancer patients were surveyed. Median age was 64, 111 (55%) were female, and 35 (18%), 32 (16%) and 26 (13%) had gastrointestinal, lung and breast cancer, respectively. The median overall survival was 8.5 months. 144 (72%) patients perceived their referral was “just in time,” 42 (21%) felt it was “late/much too late,” and 14 (7%) felt it was much “too early/early.” 76/193 (39%) felt the referral should occur at the time of diagnosis of cancer, 32 (17%) when they start first-line chemotherapy, 46 (24%) at diagnosis of recurrent disease, 14 (7%) when there are no further treatment options, and 4 (2%) reported never. We found no significant difference in survival among patients who reported their referral was early, just in time, and late (median 9.8 vs. 8.3 vs. 9.0 months, P=0.43). Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer were referred to our outpatient Supportive Care clinic a median of 8.5 months before death. A vast majority of patients perceived the timing of referral was appropriate, and many agreed that referral should occur early in the disease trajectory. The lack of association between perceived timeliness of referral and survival may be related to the ceiling effect and the small number of patients who felt their referral was late.